Table 6 The comparison of performance of the HMPI and other methods mentioned above at identifying prokaryotic promoters
From: A successful hybrid deep learning model aiming at promoter identification
Organism | Method | Sn (%) | Sp (%) | Acc (%) | Mcc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Escherichia coli K-12 | HMPI | 90.21 | 88.11 | 89.16 | 0.7834 |
Stability | 76.61 | 79.48 | 78.04 | 0.5615 | |
iPro54 | 77.76 | 83.15 | 80.45 | 0.6100 | |
iPromoter-2L | 79.20 | 83.15 | 80.45 | 0.6343 | |
MULTiPly | 87.27 | 86.57 | 86.92 | 0.7385 |